Friday, April 8, 2011

----------------------------------------------"Young people, one of the reasons that you're poor, is because you've been cheating on God...I'm just saying many of you are poor because God can't bless you when you're stealing from him." Paige Patterson to his SWBTS Seminary Students in Chapel 4/5/11

Paige Patterson entered the tithing debate in his SWBTS chapel sermon from 4/5/11 on the 8th commandment "thou shalt not steal". And of course no self-respecting Southern Baptist will teach on stealing, without touching on the worst form of stealing: robbing God by failing to give 10% of their income to the local church. Let's all say the eighth commandment: "thou shalt not, not tithe."

Patterson told his students that one of the reasons they are poor, is because they're robbing God of the tithe. But of course, he goes on to explain how wonderfully blessed he is, because when he was 15 years old he made a vow to God that he would give 20% of his income to the Lord in exchange for a pulpit to preach in every Sunday.

Patterson even says at times he had to borrow money to keep his 20% vow to the Lord. Perhaps Patterson wants his students to be tithing on their Pell Grants and federal student loans. Should they tithe on their "increase" when dear 'ol dad sends a few hundred bucks for expenses?

You'll also see and hear in the video where Patterson puts the principle of the tithe on par with one of the ten commandments. Really - you have to see it to believe it.

Someone needs to remind Patterson that according to the Old Testament standard, he too is robbing God, because 20% is still short of the 23 1/3% annual amount specified in the bible. And I think Jesus said something to the rich young ruler about selling all of his possessions. But Jesus apparently smiles on Patterson's 20%, and punishes the seminary students with poverty for their stinginess.

I can't decide which is more disgusting: watching a wealthy preacher who has literally traveled the world and made millions off of the generosity of Christians his whole life, tell these same Christians that they are poor because they don't tithe....or the thought that his students at his seminary listen and believe him, and will then repeat this rubbish to their own congregations.

This message really does harken back to the Catholic church and indulgences: telling the poor to give their alms to the religious institution so that they and their seed may be blessed by God - while the religious leaders live high on the hog as evidence of how God has blessed them and not the plebe.

SWBTS seminary students, do you really buy this? And are you going to teach this doctrine to your churches?

Pastor search committee members: you might want to play this video when interviewing any SWBTS seminary grads and ask your prospective hire if they really believe this taught by their seminary's high priest.

Watch the video above and enjoy, as you watch legalism and prosperity gospel - Southern Baptist Style - in full display.

176 comments:

Hmm. I assume Dave Ramsey tithes. Is that why he's rich? Or could it be that he's a very good salesmen? And very good salesmen tend to get rich.

It's a depressing thought, but I guess instead of worrying about the magical thing that happens to people when they tithe, these future preachers could study the life of Patterson and simply do what he did-the other things, besides tithing.

What about all the poor preachers who have tithed all their lives? How to explain them?

Anon - I can't quite make it to the theological level with Patterson on the tithe. My BS-o-meter goes off when a millionaire who makes his living off of Christians' generous giving, then turns around and tells people why he is so blessed is because he gives 20% and the others are not blessed because they don't give enough. No, his entire lifestyle is built upon the average pew sitter who gives generously to their church who in turn gives generously to the CP. THAT is why Patterson is blessed.

It is embarrassing, as Parker points out it is illogical.

But as far as theological, I would say Patterson isn't even in the same area code as MacArthur, or Kostenberger at SEBTS.

If it makes you feel any better, my pastor from SEBTS made a brief swipe in last Sunday's sermon about those who impose their opinions on the Bible rather than letting the text speak and tithing was given as an example.

You said:"If it makes you feel any better, my pastor from SEBTS made a brief swipe in last Sunday's sermon about those who impose their opinions on the Bible rather than letting the text speak and tithing was given as an example."

Are you saying that your Pastor said that tithing is required for New Testament believers?

I don't know why anyone even listens to Paige Patterson, or listens to those who listen to him.

It reminds of when all those people who gave to Robert Tilton in the early '90s were upset to find out he was just taking checks out of their letters and throwing everything else straight in the trash. After watching that guy for 5 minutes, what would you expect?

If it has feathers, webbed feet and quacks, it's a duck. If anyone just listens to Paige Patterson, or looks at the devastation he has caused in the last 30 years by his behavior and dogmatic pursuit of his own ego-driven agenda, it's clear he's a clown that's out for his own advancement first and foremost.

... [Patterson] made a vow to God that he would give 20% of his income to the Lord in exchange for a pulpit to preach in every Sunday.

Does Patterson really think that God has blessed his attempts to strike a deal with the Almighty? Is God pleased with buying the pulpit? Would his mnistry only be half as blessed if he gave 10%? Would it be twice as blessed if he gave 40%?

Anon April 8, 2011 9:18 AM -- I hope the Watchdog and everyone else stays far from Patterson's "zip code", as Patterson has shown himself to be ignorant of the most basic truths of Bible interpretation in this matter (as are any who follow these teachings).

Paige Patterson, super fat pastor reaping his richness of the tithe - look at this man, listen to his arrogance. He needs to be put out to pasture - his lifestyle says it all. The only spirit is what our hearts need to listen too, not some arrogant old school preacher like him.Unthinkable people pay tuition to hear this arrogant man tell them their young people are poor because they do no tithe - may I ask how Patterson knows who we give to and don't.

Review his lifestyle & how handsome he lives off of the peoples tithe. Sickening! I've totally lost respect for the SBC super preachers.

COME ON NOW?! Dawg, if you keep this up all my friends at TBN will have to sell off their gilded furniture and close down the Holy Land Experience in Orlando.

My buddy Benny Hinn will have to sell his jet and Peter Popoff will have to start selling more tap, errr: holy water for us poor lowly seminary students.

YOU REALLY NEED TO STOP PREACHING AGAINST THE TITHE or it might even shut down the U.S. government. I know have gross Senator Grassley inflict a "tithe" on ALL churches and it would totally take car of the 14 trillion dollar debt. Naw, never mind, they would just spend it on more pork barrel projects.

Now i know why I am a poor preacher. I havn't given 2o%. I have had the audacity to think that giving to needs outside the church was ,still giving to God. I graduated from a seminary not connected with S.B.C. Seems to me I was taught to lay up your treasurers in heaven. My bank account on earth is small but I hope it is larger in Heaven.

You said:"If it makes you feel any better, my pastor from SEBTS made a brief swipe in last Sunday's sermon about those who impose their opinions on the Bible rather than letting the text speak and tithing was given as an example."

Tom Parker-->Are you saying that your Pastor said that tithing is required for New Testament believers?

================

Sorry, I wasn't clear but the pastor was using "tithing" as an example of people imposing their own views on scripture. I've not heard him beg for money once, or talk about a mandatory tithe. I guess I should just ask him one of these days. I would be really surprised if he believes in a mandatory tithe. He seems spot on about everything else.

The early church members had all things in common. Lets start a new trend. Lets all put our wives and children on the payroll and start a Baptist Church. Then we all can live in millionaire homes within gated communities, live like kings, drive two Caddy's, fly all over the world and tithe easily a tithe on the tithe. Yeah.

I believe 100% in tithing and giving all I can to support my church and my pastor. I do it because it is the right thing to do and not because of other motives. However, I DO NOT support this kind of crap and instances like this are the exact reason my wife and I do not attend a SBC. It is horrible that people like this are molding the young minds of our future pastors and youth leaders. Patterson, Caner, Brunson, Hinn, Tilton, they are all the same. Getting rich off of lies and fear. When is it going to stop? When are people going to see these men for who they really are?

When a man says, "It ain't about the money..", you can bet it is all about the money. Watchdog, it is evident that with you, the tithe is all about the money. This blog is so sad. Most church problems are instigated by unregenerated church members. I am praying your heart is changed before you cause problems in your new church home.

Actually I think the Mormons have outdone the baptists in missions. Our pastor told us so....

April 9, 2011 9:54 AM

He's right. Pimply faced "elders" on a bikes doing thier 2 year mission work. Mormonism is growing. In fact, the last time they visited me, their literature look alot like the marketing stuff put out by the local Mega church to get people in.

Too funny! First, you obviously don't know where we worship currently. Secondly, preachers where we have worshipped in the past 2 1/2 years are not beating people over the heads from the pulpit and threatening them and putting a guilt trip on them and complaining about how they aren't getting enough money.

That is reserved for a few mega pastors in our city, and few wannabes who really lay it on thick to extract money from the peeps.

You can excuse it all you want from your pastor, by saying everyone does it, but thankfully they all don't.

Interesting, I really can't agree with what he is saying. I like how you put his message..."Thou shalt not, not tithe." The percentage rule is simply OT, which is a law that was not carried into the NT under our new covenant with God. I am actually looking into seminary options now. Any recommendations?

Just a few thoughts and responses: Annon 4/9/ 10:52 pmYou are exactly right about the small churches of the SBC supporting the majority of the mission’s work done by the IMB. As a former IMB missionary, I have received, first hand, larger “love offerings” for sharing with a smaller church than all the gifts I have received from ALL of the large/mega churches we have spoken at. Annon 4/8 4:17 pmSWBTS IS IN TROUBLE!!! My wife and I are grads of SWBTS. It is definitely the same place as when we were there. I would not set foot on that campus now for any reason, period. I believe the wrong people are leading that school. The proof is the drastic decline in enrollment and the opulent life style of PP and his wife. Just look at a X-mas video from Pecan Manor, or whatever they have named it. ‘nuf said! WatchDog,I hope your BS-o-meter is registering the same thing my BS-o-meter is, cow poop! There is a lot of it being spread by some pastors of large and small churches in the SBC. Thank you for bringing these things to our attention. You get a lot of flack everyday. The flack-givers are as strange as they come. I am glad we are back in Japan as “tent-maker” missionaries. We are not dependent on a church(s) or the IMB to provide for us. God is providing for us very well. Our needs are taken care of and then some. We can do what God wants us to do without having to go through levels of leadership, some who do not live in Japan and do know the language or culture. I think the SBC is very bad shape in just about every area of ministry and theological education. Oh and by the way…you can tell PP to stick it where the sun does not shine. We have given as much, percentage wise, as PP and we are not rich, in money, but we are multi-billionaires in the blessings God has given us through the years because we were faithful to Him and His plan for our lives. Money is not all there is to life, life of a church, or the life of a pastor or missionary. Someday PP and his crowd of followers will learn that very important fact. I HOPE!! RPhippsMissionary to Japan

Good for you! This is what all missionaries should do who stay in a country a long time. They become part of the commmunity and identity of the country when they make a living there, too.

I know it is harder in third world countries and I understand that. But it is a bit disconcerting that a missionary can look more like a pasha to the natives. They are never really one of them. But it does make for many rice Christians.

I personally think the face of missions will change drastically. With technology I can skype a missionary and transfer funds into their account same day. Hundreds can join in just on the internet.

Will soemone tell me why we need so many bureaucrats with such high salaries to facilitate missions?

We don't. The SBC is a black hole and an organization that for many years has been about cronies taking care of their crony friends with OUR money.

Tell them no. Vote with your pocket book. If you must just designate to your local church only.

Which reminds me of a joke. Catholic, Lutheran, and baptist church leaders are discussing how they allocate the funds that come in from the collection plate. The catholic priest says, "well, by the time we take the amount we need for my expenses, there's not much left.." and drones on for a while about percentage breakdowns. The Lutheran says "I throw the contents of the offering plate down the stairs and whatever gets to the bottom I spend on the congregation and the rest goes to my expenses." Then the baptist piously says "I throw the plate as high as I can in the air, and the lord takes what he wants, and drops the rest for me."

"Oh and by the way…you can tell PP to stick it where the sun does not shine. We have given as much, percentage wise, as PP and we are not rich, in money, but we are multi-billionaires in the blessings God has given us through the years because we were faithful to Him and His plan for our lives."

We are so blessed we get to criticize those we disagree with behind the veil of secrecy. So blessed by God we can't trust Him to protect us from our enemies. So blessed we can't help but search for ...

"Richmond has a Baptist seminary affiliated with Virginia Baptists that is also not a CR entity."

Wow... suggesting a seminary with a baptist name that isn't a part of the CR but does support homosexuality like the baptist seminary on Wake Forests campus in Winston Salem where two lesbian women were united in the chapel.

The SBC gave up any claim to being devoted to missions when it opted out of the WBA. That made it clear they were much more interested in politics (power and money) than following the Great Commission.

"We are so blessed we get to criticize those we disagree with behind the veil of secrecy. So blessed by God we can't trust Him to protect us from our enemies. So blessed we can't help but search for ...

You get it."

As a PASTOR, Jon, why don't you model faith by giving up your salary paid for by pew sitters and trust God to provide for you?

Show us how it is done. I am sure He will protect you and your family.

Wow... suggesting a seminary with a baptist name that isn't a part of the CR but does support homosexuality like the baptist seminary on Wake Forests campus in Winston Salem where two lesbian women were united in the chapel.

April 11, 2011 9:32 AM

Wow, seems are seminaries have churned out their share of perverts and pedophiles. Just check them all out on Christa's blog.

but molesting kids is not that big of a deal to the SBC leadership only homosexuality.

"As a PASTOR, Jon, why don't you model faith by giving up your salary paid for by pew sitters and trust God to provide for you?"

Oh, how little you know of me. On several occasions I have done just that and would do it in a heartbeat God spoke, as He has in the past.

Of course you know scripture speaks of the body supporting the preacher. Paul chose not to take it, as god led but He spoke directly at the "pew sitters" (your term) to support their pastor / preacher.

"Show us how it is done. I am sure He will protect you and your family."

He has.

"Go ahead. You certainly don't mind rebuking others for such things."

When He speaks, I will follow, not you and your attempts to prove something to yourself.

I've been a tent maker and would do it again in a heartbeat if God directs. Why don't you pray for God to direct in such a way.

I would like to thank PP for correcting Jon Estes. Jon stated that even the pour should be able to give 23% as the OT demands. PP has proved him wrong. If the Godly and spiritual Baptist leader PP has to borrow money to give 20% (less than what God demanded in the OT) and he makes millions, how can the average member (much less a poor member) give this amount?

"Oh, how little you know of me. On several occasions I have done just that and would do it in a heartbeat God spoke, as He has in the past."

Right Jon. Tell you what, you let us know the next time God speaks to you and tells you not to take a salary so we can see your mighty faith at work. In the meantime, based upon your arrogance and wrong teaching here, I will choose not to believe you.

Oh, and another reason I choose not to believe you is because for several years after your arrogance on BBC, several bloggers were sharing links they came across that showed Jon Estes, Pastor, applying for several preaching jobs and at least one inquiry for a headmaster job at FBCJax school.

"Of course you know scripture speaks of the body supporting the preacher. Paul chose not to take it, as god led but He spoke directly at the "pew sitters" (your term) to support their pastor / preacher."

I do not know any such thing. They deserve double honor which is not money. Paul could have taken money for his travels...but tell me the name of the church that would have paid him a "salary"? And would that salary be for his time there? Would they continue to pay him when he went to another church? Exactly how would that have worked?

I do not see money paid to "pastor" a local church. "pastoring" is a function. Not an office. Office is not in the Greek. It was "added by translators".

A paid pastor is an invention of church they took on after the pagans who paid their "orators" in the temple.

I also do not see a plurality of elders paid. I see evangelists, apostles given money to help on their travels.

The local body in the NT did not need to pay someone to teach them permently. They were learning themselves with the BEST teacher: The Holy Spirit.

I'm sorry but both Truett and Logsdon are extremely liberal seminaries.

April 11, 2011 11:03 AM

Sorry, but that is not true and is a typical SBC lie about anyone or anything independent of the SBC. Truett and Logsdon both teach people how to read the Bible for themselves, research the text and context of the passage, understand the meaning from the Greek or Hebrew, and preach and teach the laity. That is what a seminary (a graduate educational institution) is supposed to do.

SWBTS and SBTS are both becoming bible colleges where they teach you what they want your to teach and believe, not how to be like the Bereans and study the Word for yourself.

"Richmond has a Baptist seminary affiliated with Virginia Baptists that is also not a CR entity."

Wow... suggesting a seminary with a baptist name that isn't a part of the CR but does support homosexuality like the baptist seminary on Wake Forests campus in Winston Salem where two lesbian women were united in the chapel.

None of the three recommended non-CR Baptist seminaries support homosexuality. And you have the story wrong about the events involving the chapel at Wake Forest. There is a church that meets in the chapel, which church is not part of the College. The church has hired two women to be pastors, but those women are not in an intimate relationship with each other.

"And you have the story wrong about the events involving the chapel at Wake Forest. There is a church that meets in the chapel, which church is not part of the College. The church has hired two women to be pastors, but those women are not in an intimate relationship with each other."

In 1998, [Dr. Susan] Parker was at the center of a controversy over homosexuality which attracted national attention and was the subject of the award-winning documentary A Union in Wait. Parker, then a student at Wake Forest University School of Divinity, and her partner requested permission to hold a covenant ceremony in WFU’s Wait Chapel where Wake Forest Baptist Church meets. After months of discussion, WFU President Thomas Hearn decided not to interfere in the affairs of the congregation and the covenant ceremony was held in Wait Chapel in September, 2000. http://www.thebigdaddyweave.com/2011/01/historic-nc-baptist-church-calls-lesbian-as-pastor.html

Of course I never said the two pastors were intimate, that seems to be an attempt to deflect the truth. Parker was a student at the divinity school in Wake Forest during this union ceremony.

The BTSR had a student with no ax to grind who wrote about the school and the professor and students. Google can help you find it. ABP didn't write about it (interesting). BP did.

Knowing it was happening in their chapel, even by an outside group is supporting. Goodness, Dr. Parker was a student at the divinity school. Dr.Bill Leonard said he would lay down his life for the right of homosexuals to get a seminary education at the school he led.

I did not lie, you just refuse to accept what is there.

If you knowingly drive your car to let someone rob a bank, you are guilty.

This man has a B.A., a Th.M. and a Ph.D. Additionally, he is the President of a major theological seminary (SEBTS). And he is ACTUALLY teaching that Christians are required to tithe, and that failure to do so is "stealing".

Unbelievable... I'm completely flabbergasted...

About 95% of what he's saying is found NOWHERE IN SCRIPTURE. He is simply stating things as biblical fact, but it is nothing more than his personal philosophy.

If what the Seminary at Wake Forest did was support of homosexuality, the SWBTS supported sexual exploitation of church members by ministers when its president endorsed a known sexual pervert. And you know of whom I speak.

You totally misrepresent the situation. The church is an independent body and has certain rights in use of the chapel. The seminary and the University chose not to interfere in the church's exercise of those rights. Interference would have violated the agreement under which the church uses the property.

"If what the Seminary at Wake Forest did was support of homosexuality, the SWBTS supported sexual exploitation of church members by ministers when its president endorsed a known sexual pervert. And you know of whom I speak."

You mean the man who was expelled from the college once the accusations were substantiated? You mean by the man who moderated the meeting to have the student in question removed from the church he was pastoring at the time he was expelled?

Of course the man you refer to, I guess, was not a student at SWBTS nor was PP the president of that seminary when all this occurred. Unless you speak of another incident.

"You totally misrepresent the situation. The church is an independent body and has certain rights in use of the chapel. The seminary and the University chose not to interfere in the church's exercise of those rights. Interference would have violated the agreement under which the church uses the property."

It is a sad day when a religious body can't stand on moral ground and say no to the support of and mock union of two lesbian women on their property.

Do you have a copy of that agreement? No moral clause? I bet they treat their students with... never mind, the probably don't.

And what was that you said about Bill Leonard's position to have homosexuals in the divinity school? No support?

If you are the one who washed stupid off your forehead, please write ignorant on it.

Don't know. Maybe he believes in the Lord's tithe is to be given to the church. You would need to ask him.

"The OT standard was 23% - so he is still stealing from God according to the OC."

Take it up with him.

"And wouldn't it be an insult to give less under Grace than what the law required?"

Again, you would need to ask him how he considers the other tithes spoken of are to be dealt with. I know many men who believe in the tithe and believe the 10% still is in affect due to it being here pre law and now post law.

"So, why is he bragging and claiming God's blessing when he is still giving less than the law requires?"

I don't speak for others, you would need to ask him. If he were in this discussion I would be glad to respond to him but golly he is not.

If a rich man like PP has to borrow money to give less than what the law requires, how are poor people supposed to give a larger percent?

You said that you had faith that God could enable a person to give more than what the law required, but a rich man like PP is having to borrow to give under that amount.

Is PP a bad money manager, stingy, or is it that he doesn't have enough faith?"

"Don't know. Maybe he believes in the Lord's tithe is to be given to the church. You would need to ask him."

The reason I am asking you is because of your claim that God would enable a poor person to give more than the law requires (23%). Yet here is a rich Godly leader who can't do it without borrowing money.

Two possibilities:1 - You are wrong2 - Page Patterson is not in God's will

"Again, you would need to ask him how he considers the other tithes spoken of are to be dealt with. I know many men who believe in the tithe and believe the 10% still is in affect due to it being here pre law and now post law."

It sounds like you are saying that we can cherry pick the parts of the Bible that we want to believe in.

That is something that you have criticized others on this blog for doing.

So, were you wrong when you criticized others for thinking that we parts of the OT could be ignored?

Or are you wrong now for not criticizing PP for doing the same thing?

You were among those who believed in the tithe being mandatory until recently Jon. Why did you change your mind.

Wouldn't the criteria you used invalidate their contention?

And by the way, the "tithe" given pre-law was not on income it was a one time event on spoils of war.

"I'm sure you can put the label on him you are most comfortable with."

If you can come up with another option, I am all ears.

Fortunately, I'm not the one standing up in front of poor college students labeling them as thieves while I walk around in expensive clothes and brag about how much I give while still not living up to the OT standard.

"I know many men who believe in the tithe and believe the 10% still is in affect due to it being here pre law and now post law."

And where is the passage in the NT that tells us 10%?

Thanking you in advance. Only proves we have many men in the SBc who are A)ignorant of the Word or, B) Just greedy or C) Have no faith in people being led by the Holy Spirit in what to give and to whom.

Fortunately, I'm not the one standing up in front of poor college students labeling them as thieves while I walk around in expensive clothes and brag about how much I give while still not living up to the OT standard.

April 11, 2011 5:49 PM

Exactly. Not far from Rod Parsley, is he?

If they were really studying the Word at SWBTS, those students would have walked out because they would recognize false teaching.

"Fortunately, I'm not the one standing up in front of poor college students labeling them as thieves while I walk around in expensive clothes and brag about how much I give while still not living up to the OT standard."

Neither am I.

"And believe me, you don't have to ask him because he is a PUBLIC teacher and his teaching is game to be analyzed in PUBLIC. AFter all, he gets paid to do it."

It doesn't mean it has to be analyzed.

"Hey Anon, Jon is sure Patterson will take your calls. Right."

Where did I say that? In most circles that would be called a lie.

"I think you should ask him. I'm not the one who made the claim."

And what claim did I make? What question did I ask seeking such information about PP?

"I'm not asking you to speak for him Jon. Just wondering why your claim doesn't seem to work for a rich Godly Baptist leader."

I'm not on a witch hunt like most here. What PP gives is between him and the Lord, if he wants to discuss it with me or you then we can take time to dig into his thoughts.

PP doesn't have to agree with me just like I don't have to agree with you even though it sure seems you wish it that way.

Thanks for the clue Jon. I assume they are referring to Hebrews 7. That is certainly taking it out of context to suggest that passage is teaching a tithe. It is not prescriptive but descriptive. And the point is WHO Jesus is and the comparison to Melchizedek which starts in chp 6:

19 We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and secure. It enters the inner sanctuary behind the curtain, 20 where our forerunner, Jesus, has entered on our behalf. He has become a high priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.

Let us read on and see how this teaches "10%" of the spoils of war for today. Seems it teaches just the opposite with our NEW HIGH PRIEST...Jesus Christ:

chp 75 Now the law requires the descendants of Levi who become priests to collect a tenth from the people—that is, from their fellow Israelites—even though they also are descended from Abraham. 6 This man, however, did not trace his descent from Levi, yet he collected a tenth from Abraham and blessed him who had the promises. 7 And without doubt the lesser is blessed by the greater. 8 In the one case, the tenth is collected by people who die; but in the other case, by him who is declared to be living. 9 One might even say that Levi, who collects the tenth, paid the tenth through Abraham, 10 because when Melchizedek met Abraham, Levi was still in the body of his ancestor.

11 If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood—and indeed the law given to the people established that priesthood—why was there still need for another priest to come, one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron? ****12 For when the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also.**** 13 He of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe, and no one from that tribe has ever served at the altar. 14 For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. 15 And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, 16 one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life. 17 For it is declared: “You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.”[a]

18 The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless 19 (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.

20 And it was not without an oath! Others became priests without any oath, 21 but he became a priest with an oath when God said to him:

“The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind: ‘You are a priest forever.’”[b]

22 Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantor of a better covenant.

A BETTER COVENANT, Jon.

Are they claiming the Body of Christ is like Melchizedek and must take 10% as spoils of war?

"I'm not on a witch hunt like most here. What PP gives is between him and the Lord, if he wants to discuss it with me or you then we can take time to dig into his thoughts."

Oh now it is a "witch hunt" to analyze PUBLIC teaching by a PUBLIC teacher paid by one of our entities. PP has made SURE it is not just between him and the LORD. He is teaching it to young minds full of mush who hang on his every word.

He might want to consider Matthew 6 before he brags about such things again in public.

I have experienced over a long period of time during the last several years that most mega Baptist speakers (I cannot call them preachers) regardless of what chapters they are referecing somehow eventually get back to tithing and being generous. It always happens. Point being its all about the MONEY!!

Perfect example of a pastor. Peter is the true pastor for he said to a man "silver and gold have I not but such as I have I give unto thee". If money was not important much less even suggested to the chief pastor in the beginning who didn't have one penney why has it become now so very important. The pastors of the 21st century need to get frugal if that is even pssible not only with their own finances but the finances of the pew sitters.

It is my heart to criticize no more. If I am committing blasphemy I promise it no longer is in my heart to speak harm.

I do not have all the answers on all the tithes. I do have what I believe God has shown me and am glad to stand firm on that until He shows me otherwise.

If my responses do not suffice, I do not know what to tell you. They are my answers.

I discovered today that I am glad we are different. I would not want a world of people like me. It would not be a good place.

Thank you for your love of God's word. I confess I love His word also. I have not yet arrived but my journey, for the most part, has been sweet and blessed. I hope I have not made your journey more difficult or discouraging. If so, I sincerely apologize.

New me...

March 31, 2011 2:40 PM

Jon L. Estes said...

[snip]

I'm not on a witch hunt like most here.

[snip]

April 11, 2011 5:55 PM

Well, the "new me" certainly didn't last long, did he? Jon, don't you have a church to pastor... or something? Other than to argue for the sake of arguing and to criticize, what is your purpose here?

He usually starts off with a bold proclamation like: "the tithe is still in effect for NT believers."

He follows that up with accusations that anyone who disagrees with him is ignoring sections of scripture just because it comes from the OT. He ignores the fact that he does the very same thing by not following some of the OT commands (stoning a child for disobedience, etc), but hopes that no one notices and never responds to your point.

Then when you ask him to defend his position with scripture, he points to some old proof texts that are out of context and don't support his contention.

When you show him how he is interpreting these verses incorrectly because of context, he says that his interpretation is not heretical. As if that is a viable substitute for rightly dividing the word of truth - as we are commanded to do.

Then when you ask follow-up questions that expose his faulty interpretation and show a contradiction with other verses, like the fact that there are 3 tithes in the OT and not one, he quotes verses about asking idle and vain questions. Even though these are logical follow-up questions to his original proclamation.

After days of asking the same questions again and again, he finally admits that he doesn't have all the answers but God told him something that contradicts what the Bible teaches. So he should stick with it.

Later he finally admits that he was partially wrong, but tries to hold onto his original belief by saying that we should do more under grace than by law. This is a way of holding onto the law and upping the ante. He ignores the inconvenient laws like stoning children for disobedience in his theory.

After it is pointed out that he is a pastor and should know how to interpret scripture without contradicting other scripture, this is where his sympathy tactic kicks in and you get the statements like: "I don't want to criticize" and "new me."

That lasts until a new post is added to the blog and then he reverts to his snarky, smart-alek, obtuse, evasive, name-calling default means of attack.

"Right after his "new me" comment. He was one of the first to leave a comment on the April Fool's Spoof post laughing at how dumb the reader's of this blog are because they didn't know it was a joke."

Actually, it was not the April Fools post. I did not respond to that one. I did make a comment to the movie clip about raising money. the one with one of the Baldwin brothers. I did not call anyone dumb. I do see how such a mistake could be made with my previous comments.

"For the reason I gave. It seemed some people thought the movie clip was real. That is funny."

OK, let me get this straight. You thought it was funny because some readers thought the clip was real when it was a spoof right? So, I can reasonably assume that you thought that these readers were gullible/not so bright correct?

Isn't that exactly what I said you were doing? Man, we sure could save lots of time around here if you would stop parsing your words Jon.

Sheesh.

Again, it's getting harder and harder to tell what is real and what isn't with some of the non-scriptural things that are being taught in church these days.

Also couldn't it be that some people read the article and didn't watch the video? Let's not automatically assume everyone is a simpleton.

Does anyone remember the short-lived show from about 10-12 years ago called Fact or Fiction? It was hosted by Jonathan Frakes of new Star Trek fame. They would show short dramatizations of stories, some true, some made up, and at the end they'd reveal which were based in fact and which were fiction. Sometimes the results were surprising.

Well, I'd like to see some of these blog posts compiled into a "fact or fiction" test to see if people who'd never read them and aren't familiar with the ridiculousness going on in the name of Christianity today could tell which are true and which are spoofs. I bet the results of that experiment would be surprising, too. Frankly, if I didn't know better, I wouldn't believe any of them.

"You understand that this statement contradicts what you were saying earlier and also makes your point moot right?"

I don't think it does. The earlier question revolved around being paid by the pew sitters. I don't have pew sitters in my church as that term has often been defined here.

An example "but if the pew-sitters weren't so biblically illiterate"

I know of only one member in the church who might say they pay my salary. There could be more but I am only aware of one.

I am very aware that the church members at JPBC believe they are giving their tithes and offerings to the Lord's work and the Lord provides my income. This has been stated on several occasions in finance meetings as well as a few business meetings. Never has it been initiated by me. I have only preached on giving twice in the 4+ years I have been there.

I am not attempting to parse words but use them correctly.

"I think its funny that an annon had to teach a 50 year old pastor about NT giving"

It was a young pastor out of Durham who did. JD Greaer helped me understand.I may stand with the anons in not believing in the tithe but they are removed from my position on giving.

"and about the definition of gluttony"

My position on gluttony has not changed. I know what some of the anons state but I disagree with them.

"and about the proper interpretation of "touch not thine anointed."

Not sure if I have changed my position and have never disagreed that all of God's children are anointed. I still believe God would not have us touch His anointed.

"Again, not logical that you would think it was funny without denigrating the person in some way."

I disagree with your position.

"And I would think that you would be the very last person to laugh at someone for getting something wrong considering how many times that you have had to admit you were wrong on this blog."

I'm not afraid of being wrong and willing to admit it when I discover I am.

"At least it wasn't about an issue that I was supposed to be an expert in. You know, like the Bible."

I am a student of the bible, not an expert. Most of those who use the expert title put it on themselves. some are more advanced than I, some are not. Yet, we all should be students. It is very possible that all the experts are in glory, not with us here.

"If your statement is true, there would be no reason to think it was funny. "

Maybe for you but I actually thought it was funny.

"That's why I asked you the question and also why you dodged the answer.

Your word parsing is not working Jon."

No dodge and a direct answer to your question. I can't give the answer it seems you want and still think it was funny. They would disagree with each other. I'll keep the one which is true to me. chuckling as I type.

"I am very aware that the church members at JPBC believe they are giving their tithes and offerings to the Lord's work and the Lord provides my income. This has been stated on several occasions in finance meetings as well as a few business meetings. Never has it been initiated by me. I have only preached on giving twice in the 4+ years I have been there."

I thought you have given up on the idea of a NT tithe. Are we regressing?

Yeah, that's a bunch of double-talk Jon. No where in the bible is there a precedent for a head pastor in a church. That began when the church became accepted by the Roman government and they started incorporating elements of the pagan culture. In the case of today's pastor, that was borrowed from the pagan temples in Rome that hired eloquent orators during their services. So, you really can't claim that you are being paid by God. Nice try though.

And those two times that you preached on giving, did you endorse an OT tithe? If so, have you corrected that teaching from the pulpit?

"I am a student of the bible, not an expert. Most of those who use the expert title put it on themselves. some are more advanced than I, some are not. Yet, we all should be students. It is very possible that all the experts are in glory, not with us here."

Again, word parsing to avoid the obvious. As a pastor, you should have studied at least as much as I have (a non-pastor). And then when the correct interpretation was shown to you, you should have agreed instead of arguing for days and then being resentful.

"No dodge and a direct answer to your question. I can't give the answer it seems you want and still think it was funny. They would disagree with each other. I'll keep the one which is true to me. chuckling as I type."

Hey, you finally figured it out. Congratulations! What you are saying it not logically possible. I knew you could do it if you tried hard enough.

Ah, the old "true for you but not for me" relativism - straight from the culture. Where do you find that in the Bible Jon?

I tell you what. Head on up to your bank one day at lunch and ask to withdraw a million dollars. When they tell you that you don't have the much in your account, you give them that same line.

You see that psycho-babble just doesn't work in real-life Jon.

I prefer this thing called reality. Try it sometime. You might like it.

"You do understand that when you are give a nebulous answer like this that you cause people to be suspicious right?"

I don't think anyones being suspicious has anything to do with my comments. Some people are suspicious people. I'm OK with that.

"Again, word parsing to avoid the obvious. As a pastor, you should have studied at least as much as I have (a non-pastor). And then when the correct interpretation was shown to you, you should have agreed instead of arguing for days and then being resentful."

Just because someone has a different interpretation does not mean I see it as the correct interpretation.

If I came of resentful, that was never my intent. The arguing for days was quite fun, for me at least.

"I thought you have given up on the idea of a NT tithe. Are we regressing?"

I was not speaking for what I believe but what the people in the church I pastor believe. No regression in that.

I have no problem with church people believing that the Lords' tithe is still required. Giving by grace instead of law requires at least that.

" So, you really can't claim that you are being paid by God. Nice try though."

"I don't think anyones being suspicious has anything to do with my comments. Some people are suspicious people. I'm OK with that."

Yes, but you shouldn't be OK with causing suspicion because people can never take what you say at face value. Much like one of our former presidents, we can never trust what you write because of your word parsing.

"I have no problem with church people believing that the Lords' tithe is still required. Giving by grace instead of law requires at least that."

What you are saying here is that truth doesn't matter. An odd position for a teacher to take.

Wasn't Christ the way, the TRUTH, and the life?

Perhaps the OT tithe was the exception to the rule, but I can't find that in scripture. Perhaps you can point us to it.

Please provide scriptural evidence for your last sentence. Keep in mind that the OT tithe was 23% not 10%, was given to the poor, for festivals, and to men who were not allowed to own anything and was always food never money.

This reminds me of the time that I heard Dr. William Lane Craig talking about why he never debates anyone without a PHD.

He made a statement similar to the one I did. Where he claimed that the atheist could not say a particular thing. Of course, everyone in the room knew that he meant that he couldn't say it and continue to hold to his atheistic dogma without contradicting himself.

When Dr. Lane finished, the atheist stood up and repeated Dr. Lane's statement, laughed, and said "you see I can say it."

Dr. Lane cringed. This is the kind of silly response that you would expect from a third grader, not from an academic debate.

I have grieved over what is happening in some of our churches, as well as most of the tv evangelists I see on the "religious" channels. Am I alone in my complete dismay at why no one seems to make a stand against these "wolves"? I remember seeing ministers on TBB and asking myself how they could ever set foot on that stage? It's as if we are giving credence to people who use the Bible to not only bilk millions of dollars, but also give them a pass on their prosperity gospel. Why do we refrain from standing up?

Sadly, I will have to not recommend SWBTS until this heretic has left...he needs to be taught the principles of grace ALL over again and quit slandering congregants with Malachi. This is disgusting. Please someone tell me how I can get a list of the trustees.

And yet I will affirm again. IT IS HERESY. The first tithe was intrinsically tied to the priestly duties and sacrifices that they had to present. It has been fulfilled through Christ death burial and resurrection. IT IS NOT AN ETERNAL PRINCIPLE AT ALL in this dispensation. For someone to get up in the pulpit and say this principle when not applied is stealing has forgotten Paul's word with regard to ministerial brethren in the letters to the Thessalonians. A true minister is worthy of the fruits produced of his work.

Interesting - Paige is a Classic Dispensationalist. He is using Old Testament Scripture (which is for the Jew) and preaching it for (Post) New Testament gentiles. That is a big no-no in Classic Dispensationalism. If someone is going to embrace a particular hermeneutic then that someone must live by the rules of that particular system. I this case - he is preaching a Jewish ONLY text to Gentiles. Shame, Shame Shame. Maybe Paige is becoming a progressive Dispensationalist - like his Vice-Provost Craig Blaising (for some reason I bet not).

I thought I should correct the statement made by an individual on this blog that obviously has been misinformed…

Logsdon Seminary is backed by Hardin-Simmons University and has duel accreditations (SACA and ATS). They are also backed by the BGCT and SBC. Logsdon Seminary (Hardin-Simmons University) has partnered with Wayland Baptist University, which is also accredited (SACA) and supported by the BGCT and SBC. Both Universities have been around a very long time (1891 and 1908).

The training at these schools is very thorough and well rounded. The first two years (MCM or MAR) of the program at Wayland focuses on intense academic studies and research. The last 2-years (M.DIV) at Logsdon focus on practical applications in church vocation (e.g. pastoral care, family counseling, spiritual care, chaplaincy, etc…) with even more instance research in those areas. You can work the complete program with Logsdon or partially at Wayland. If you work the program with both schools you end up with two accreted master degrees in the duration of a four year M.Div. Degree at Logsdon. This will allow you to pursue either a PHD or Doctor of Ministry, depending what you are called to do (e.g. teach at a university/seminary or pastoral minister in a church).

For the stereo types, both schools are labeled as conservative to moderate schools. They both teach their students how to reach-out to people concerning where they are in their walk in life. If you are any minister at all, you should know this is the proper way to do ministry in the community, for the purpose to lead people to Christ. If you are going to choose a seminary, pray for guidance.

In addition, I recommend that you go to a well-rounded school so you can develop skills you can use. This means learning how to reach the extremes like fundamentalist and liberals. To do this you have to learn other views to reach these people. Also, this means you might have to take certain classes, do research, or have to listen to something you do not agree with in order to apply it for the cause we have in the ministry of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Finally, people go to seminary because they are called by Christ. They are placed in service according to where God led them to serve. If you have an attitude labeling people and schools with political terms, I really doubt you are called to serve. You might need rethink your future and go into governmental politics.

About Me

We're small, insignificant, and harmless. But we have a loud, piercing bark that seems to annoy those in mega churches the most. Not Kool-Aid drinkers, only fresh, filtered water, please; with Grape or Cherry flavoring from Walmart. "Let him alone; God hath bidden him to speak:"